Scopes levels above 1023

My scopes read over 10000 instead of the standard 1023. Does anyone know why this is? And how do I get my scopes at the standard 1023 instead? See screenshot attached.

[Peter Chamberlain]

Your scopes are showing NIT levels so they are in HDR mode.
Look in Preferences, user, color.

Hey Peter, how do we get those to read in the industry standard IRE?

Follow Peter's instructions:

From the DaVinci Resolve menu, select:
Preference>User>Color
Uncheck the first box "EnableHDR for ST.2084 and HLG

That worked! Thank you...

Hey Peter, how do we get those to read in the industry standard IRE?

You know, "industry standard" kinda doesn't mean anything anymore. There are so many standards, there's too many to pick.

I just use a 0 to 1023 scale and do the math in my head and think of it as a percentage. 900 would be about 90%, 600 would be about 60 percent, and so on. Being an old-school guy, I wince at anything getting slammed at 1023 anyway, so I'll generally try to soft-clip it or find a way to knock it down so it's not so harsh and "clippy" (for lack of a better word. But I'm also a big fan of external Scopebox scopes, and I adapted my way of working to that.

IRE was kind of made for an 8-bit world, so it doesn't necessarily apply anymore. When I export from Resolve, I trust that everything is going to be scaled correctly in terms of level so it winds up in the right place for broadcast or DVD or Blu-ray or whatever, all of which is 8-bit. Color bars don't suddenly wind up at 120 or 150 or something -- they stay at 100 when you export to any Rec709/601 format. So far, this has worked for the projects I do. (Granted, there are different gamma/color space variations out there, but we're only talking SDR here.) At least the Bars will tell you if there's a Video/Full data level issue, and that is a very real problem.

IRE was kind of made for an 8-bit world, so it doesn't necessarily apply anymore.

I'm not convinced of that, coming from Premiere Pro. IRE was the default SDR Scope scale whether 10 bit or 8 bit resolution was used. No math required.

I still think it makes the most sense for SDR projects.

"EnableHDR for ST.2084 and HLG" is greyed out and unselected. Is that a limitation of the free version?

Hey Peter, how do we get those to read in the industry standard IRE?

IRE is applicable to analog composite NTSC only, thus largely obsolete these days. The units that are around today are 10-bit code values, mV, and percentages. Each of these has its pros and cons.

IRE was kind of made for an 8-bit world, so it doesn't necessarily apply anymore. When I export from Resolve, I trust that everything is going to be scaled correctly in terms of level so it winds up in the right place for broadcast or DVD or Blu-ray or whatever, all of which is 8-bit. Color bars don't suddenly wind up at 120 or 150 or something -- they stay at 100 when you export to any Rec709/601 format. So far, this has worked for the projects I do. (Granted, there are different gamma/color space variations out there, but we're only talking SDR here.) At least the Bars will tell you if there's a Video/Full data level issue, and that is a very real problem.

IRE has nothing to do with 8bit world.
It's a measure of analog video signal (composite), which it totally obsolete now (actually been for many years).
Using it today is plain wrong, but so common.

We use levels now and apply EBU-R103 spec for legalisation.
No idea why BM keeps Resolve analog legaliser- rather useless and misleading. It guarantees nothing when confronted with todays QC procedures. Premiere got proper R103 legaliser, but Resolve is in dark ages when it comes to this. Another example of its deep legacy.

Resolve output should never fail gamut check anyway as it operates in RGB and during export there is no place to produce illegal YUV signal. Only exception are compression overshoots but those are typically not a worry because R103 recommendation takes them into account. Issue arrives when some facility doesn't use R103 spec, but checks for perfect 0-100% signal. There are places like this - they don't have clue what they are doing, but will keep repeating that your file fails In such a case R103 legaliser could help as we can limit signal below perfect values (as eg. Eyeheighht plugin does), so then overshoots have less chance to go outside perfect levels. This is pure luck though and things can still go bad. Correct "fix" is to use proper QC procedure according to R103, so those overshoots are filtered or fall into allowed headroom.

IRE has nothing to do with 8bit world. It's a measure of analog video signal (composite), which it totally obsolete now (actually been for many years).

You know of any 10-bit composite? Especially in 2022? My point is the same: I just use a 10-bit scale from 0 to 1023 and make a mental adjustment: 100 = 10%, 500 = 50%, 1023 = 100%, and so on. It works for me. It's worked for me ever since we went to 10-bit scaled 12-13 years ago.

BTW, for anybody looking for more info on scopes and how to interpret them, read @Steve Hullfish's excellent (and free) book:

"Using Waveform Monitors as Artistic Tools for Color Grading"
https://www.tek.com/en/documents/primer ... resolution

Lots to learn in this document. I don't think he covers Nit scales, but that isn't necessary for a 10-bit Rec709 environment per se. Just know going in that ideally, 1023 will reproduce at 100 nits. Again, it's not that difficult a concept.

IRE has nothing to do with 8bit world. It's a measure of analog video signal (composite), which it totally obsolete now (actually been for many years).

You know of any 10-bit composite? Especially in 2022? My point is the same: I just use a 10-bit scale from 0 to 1023 and make a mental adjustment: 100 = 10%, 500 = 50%, 1023 = 100%, and so on. It works for me. It's worked for me ever since we went to 10-bit scaled 12-13 years ago.

BTW, for anybody looking for more info on scopes and how to interpret them, read @Steve Hullfish's excellent (and free) book:

"Using Waveform Monitors as Artistic Tools for Color Grading"
https://www.tek.com/en/documents/primer ... resolution

Lots to learn in this document. I don't think he covers Nit scales, but that isn't necessary for a 10-bit Rec709 environment per se. Just know going in that ideally, 1023 will reproduce at 100 nits. Again, it's not that difficult a concept.

Is there a reason you prefer to do the math rather than use the scopes built-in percentage scale?

"EnableHDR for ST.2084 and HLG" is greyed out and unselected. Is that a limitation of the free version?

Not sure which version you are on but you can now change the scopes to whatever you prefer from the scope menu itself.

l.png (9.8 KiB) Viewed 6852 times

IRE has nothing to do with 8bit world. It's a measure of analog video signal (composite), which it totally obsolete now (actually been for many years).

You know of any 10-bit composite? Especially in 2022? My point is the same: I just use a 10-bit scale from 0 to 1023 and make a mental adjustment: 100 = 10%, 500 = 50%, 1023 = 100%, and so on. It works for me. It's worked for me ever since we went to 10-bit scaled 12-13 years ago.

Analog signal has no ‘bits’ so IRE and bits are separate things.
As you said - levels are the measure today. You can also use signal % and then it works for any bit depth ( less to remember but more to calculate).

Is there a reason you prefer to do the math rather than use the scopes built-in percentage scale?

Yeah, I'm using external Omniscope displays. I abandoned Resolve scopes I think about 5-6 years ago. I "could" go with an IRE scale, but I think I get a bigger vertical screen with the 0-1023 RGB parade display. I use two additional Parade displays: one zoomed in about 250% for just shadows, as well as a narrow YRGB display to remind me what luminance is doing.

Analog signal has no ‘bits’ so IRE and bits are separate things.
As you said - levels are the measure today. You can also use signal % and then it works for any bit depth ( less to remember but more to calculate).

Eh, I've made it through about 1200 features and several Dolby Vision projects in the last 20 years, all doing it this way. I'm comfortable with it. And it's better than the way we worked in the 1980s and 1990s (but that was all standard def).

I'm assuming something is becoming a touch 'wandered in translation here'...

Analog signal has no ‘bits’ so IRE and bits are separate things.
As you said - levels are the measure today. You can also use signal % and then it works for any bit depth ( less to remember but more to calculate).

Eh, I've made it through about 1200 features and several Dolby Vision projects in the last 20 years, all doing it this way. I'm comfortable with it. And it's better than the way we worked in the 1980s and 1990s (but that was all standard def).

Andrew is 'correct' in that IRE units are a hangover from analogue days... the name is derived from the initials of the Institute of Radio Engineers - which ceased to exist in 1962! - What's more, it's rather a 'Mericentric' thing as it relates to NTSC (which most of the world never used!) more than anything else...

When digital video emerged it was simply adopted as a 'familiar'. - One that was often found slightly irritating and baffling in places where scopes had been scaled in the actual SI unit of mV.

Bit depth (as I'm sure we all know perfectly well) is simply a measure of how 'granular' a given sample of an analogue sample is... i.e. with 8 binary digits you can count to 255, with 10 - 1023... relating sampled values back directly to an analogue voltage (or a unit derived from analogue voltage) only serves as a paradigm; a familiar rough indicator. - Because; quantisation error.

So, it's quite correct to say that ' "industry standard" kinda doesn't mean anything anymore.' - I'm not entirely convinced it ever really did.

But the IRE scale was designed for an analogue world - which (in theory at least) has both infinite 'bit depth' and none at all - sort of Schrödinger's quantisation-not-quantisation scheme... - The 8-bit 'digital' world was designed to echo it - not the other way around.

Are the Pedants at the back setting down yet? Yes? good!

Analog signal has no ‘bits’ so IRE and bits are separate things.
As you said - levels are the measure today. You can also use signal % and then it works for any bit depth

You're right of course but... as we're being nit-picky Andrew, the word analogue is spelt thus in actual-English. IRE was never that relevant for most (Americans often don't realise you don't actually fall off the edge of the world if you keep sailing East past the big metal lady with the ice-cream cone) - and Marc is, and apparently has actually been using a percentage paradigm for a couple of decades!

There is no significant maths (short for Mathematics - not Mathematic, which isn't really even a word) to be done here... If your particular comfort zone happens to exist within a roughly 10-point scale which you mentally 'transliterate' into a broad percentage... then to all intents and purposes you're actually working in a percentage scale which 'works for all bit depths'.

I think I get a bigger vertical screen with the 0-1023 RGB parade display.

- You may well do, you're also able (should you feel the need) to accurately interpret the absolute sample values (in 10-bit) as well as instinctively visualise the overall signal as a percentage... Much as an analogue meter might be better (in the practical/instinctive sense) for dynamic 'nulling and peaking' than a digital one; your approach makes perfect sense and clearly works.

In any case, it really ought to be realised that the only truly valid measurement here is Turtles! - Turtles! All the way down! - Who let those World Elephants into the room anyway?

Another Terry Pratchett fan! How wonderful.

Based on the last half-dozen or so posts, if someone posts in this thread again in a couple more years time, we should get a fascinating conversation about turtles.

In any case, it really ought to be realised that the only truly valid measurement here is Turtles! - Turtles! All the way down! - Who let those World Elephants into the room anyway?

For yourself you can measure it in anything

When Resolve shows you legaliser and you apply it and get files rejected this is when problems start. What is the point keeping something that outdated (specially without proper explanation in manual)? Same with signal measuring- if you do it in IRE and later client says it failed QC your IREs are useless here. You have to stick at least to some standards otherwise there is 0 point of creating them.

Based on the last half-dozen or so posts, if someone posts in this thread again in a couple more years time, we should get a fascinating conversation about turtles.

...Quite so. So long as no-one brings out a 'scope calibrated in hairs, Hares, tads or Groats.

In any case, it really ought to be realised that the only truly valid measurement here is Turtles! - Turtles! All the way down! - Who let those World Elephants into the room anyway?

For yourself you can measure it in anything

When Resolve shows you legaliser and you apply it and get files rejected this is when problems start. What is the point keeping something that outdated (specially without proper explanation in manual)? Same with signal measuring- if you do it in IRE and later client says it failed QC your IREs are useless here. You have to stick at least to some standards otherwise there is 0 point of creating them.

That's a fair point - but one that stands or falls only in relation to your intended use and the territory you are working in. Personally, being based in Scotland, I have never worked in American engineering units nor indeed to what are very foreign standards... One particular issue being that when I was lecturing in TV production I constantly had to 'disconnect' students from 'Mericentric' guff they'd picked up off the internet. - That's just the way it is; the irony being that it's actually America that had the 'oddball' standard in terms of what was used across the globe.

Have you noticed... what Resolve claims are 'EBU colour bars' don't meet the AS-11 standard, and would get your programme rejected by most UK (and I suspect European and beyond) broadcasters?

I've had a Bee in my bonnet these past few days because the presence of a BMD SDI I/O card (which is treated as an ASIO device) for monitoring, prevents Resolve from accessing any other audio device for audio input... and of course the one device it can access has no line input... so we have in Fairlight a DAW which is effectively 'hobbled' by its manufacturer's own hardware.

BMD's 'answer' to this problem was to suggest I spend over £800 on a Fairlight audio card! - Bearing in mind the SDI card is supposed to be WDM compliant and 'ought' to be able to be run in that mode - it (apparently) just can't in Resolve! - BMD support so far have come up with nothing useful by way of a response

But then all software has its faults - so does all hardware! And some of them (like these) are just plain daft!

- Part of your job as a professional (which I assume you are if your mterial is being audited) is to know what your local requirements (effectively regulations) are and how to achieve the required results... Yes, for most of the world Resolve's 'legaliser' and colour bars will be useless. - But it's an American program and therefore built from that Mericentric perspective... Equally well; what's correct in Scotland or Poland isn't-necessarily 'the way the truth and the light' elsewhere... We've now had practical desktop NLE systems for over 25 years; and these are perennial issues.

...Just bear in mind what Resolve costs, what it actually does, and how much you need to spend to achieve much the same thing with the competition.

For those who may be interested in the IRE discussion, IRE was really just a way to create a measuring scale that made sense to production operators, so they did not have to read millivolts off an oscilloscope.
It's really just a percentage scale from black to white with negative values available for the vertical & horizontal sync pulses. It applied to BOTH NTSC (black at 7.5) and PAL (black at zero) systems.

I don't really pay attention to the scale on the waveform while I'm working because I just know where things should be without reading numbers.

Also the measuring scale used makes no difference to any legaliser applied to the signal. The legacy legaliser in Resolve is retained because some users are still working in those formats and for backward compatibility.

PS Turtles are way too big. Maybe scopes with a "bees dick" scale would be good for EP's?

Analog transmission? SD formats still work poorly in Resolve. Resolve is such a bad choice for SD.
Scale doesn't make any difference, but type of legalisation is so different for analog and digital. 2 totally different things.
It can still be there, but with proper manual note. There are many people who apply "broadcast safe" in Resolve when sending to broadcast. In reality this option has nothing to do with needs of today's legalisation.

I believe one would call Resolve an Aussie program ...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I believe one would call Resolve an Aussie program ...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

A USA company product, purchased by BMD in 2009.
Eyeon Fusion was a Canadian product purchased by BMD.
Fairlight was an Australian product purchased by BMD.
BMD software development is in Singapore (unless my info is out of date).

For those who may be interested in the IRE discussion, IRE was really just a way to create a measuring scale that made sense to production operators, so they did not have to read millivolts off an oscilloscope.

The IRE (as an organisation) ceased to exist when I was five months old... I'll be 60 in July - and when I entered training (as a Broadcast Tech) in 1979, the core-skills were Electrical and Electronic Engineering... I don't know of any contemporary of mine who isn't - basically - an engineer... and could read a mV scale as instinctively as they could the bar prices at the local pub!

IRE units will have been 'invented' in the 40s or 50s or something... I don't know TBH. And whilst we WERE made aware that they existed - they were some 'odd, obscure infantilised foreign thing' beloved of 'Never Twice the Same Colour' land... according to my gaffers/and tutors.

Yes - you can express PAL in IRE... but that's a bit like walking into a pub in Glasgow and asking for two pints of Tennent's in French with a cockney accent...

I still have (and use for SD) the last 625/PAL scope (A Tektronix WFM601i) I ever used in my 40+ year career... it's calibrated in millivolts, as was every other (PAL) WFM (scope) I ever used. - Using an oscilloscope as a WFM is perfectly possible of course, but not something I've ever seen going on anywhere other than a test bench or college lab.

Mileage may vary elsewhere - but in the UK 'operators' of my generation - and certainly those of my parents were trained, qualified engineers... IRE only really became 'popularised' in the 90s, when desktop NLEs started to become affordable.

Also the measuring scale used makes no difference to any legaliser applied to the signal. The legacy legaliser in Resolve is retained because some users are still working in those formats and for backward compatibility.

Not sure anyone was suggesting it did... the point is it's pants and pointless and will probably cause you to fail the tech audit.

Analog transmission?

- does that, or even analogue transmission still go on anywhere in the world? - Apart from people pinging CCTV around their house/premises via a modulator on a closed circuit to the redundant analogue tuners in old tellies?

If so I'm almost tempted to get myself down the shed at the weekend and knock-up a Nipkow Disc!

I believe one would call Resolve an Aussie program ...

Cheeses! So it is! Shocker - the state of the bleedin' colonies! I assumed it was American because the core site takes you straight to the Septic site and it Is pretty Mericentric... that just makes it worse! You'd think Aussies would know better!

PS Turtles are way too big. Maybe scopes with a "bees dick" scale would be good for EP's?

EPs are just as expensive to press as LPs these days - might as well get the twelve-incher... The Turtles are indeed huge - apparently they have Elephants standing on top of them which hold up the (obviously flat) Earth.

Duplicate post - for which I apologise.

You may well do, you're also able (should you feel the need) to accurately interpret the absolute sample values (in 10-bit) as well as instinctively visualise the overall signal as a percentage...

Yeah, I basically do that in my head. It's all relative: the scopes are secondary to the color monitor in my world. The scopes merely confirm I'm not screwing up. I used this method with Leader scopes, Omnitek scopes, Tektronix scopes, and Videotek scopes, spread out over decades. And that includes hardware scopes and eventually rasterizers. I like the current method since I can have multiple "instances" of scopes, including HML for 3 simultaneous Vectorscopes side-by-side, plus a regular Vectorscope. And I also have a standard Vectorscope and once zoomed in about 300%:



You can't do all this in Resolve (or Baselight or Nucoda or Lustre or any other color-correction system). The advantage of keeping scopes outside of Resolve is that it's less load on the system, plus it gives you a lot more features and more flexibility on layout, plus it frees up the Resolve GUI and gives you more room to see the color controls, Lightbox, and Gallery. The disadvantage of external scopes is that it costs a bunch of money -- I'd guess we've put about $1400 into a Mac Mini, $250 in a wide display, and $1500 in a 4K UltraStudio to feed it -- but that's still a lot cheaper than what hardware 2K/4K scopes cost. BTW, for this photo I changed the labeling to percentages, just to show you can look at it either way: 0-100% vs. 0-1023 (in 10-bit). It doesn't matter: it's all there just to inform the decisions I make and tell me if our levels are going to be legal or not.

I can wholeheartedly recommend the Note Omniscope too. Compared to hardware scopes it's still cheap, much more flexible and it can be easily adapted to new formats, while in hardware you had to change your whole gear from SD to HD (and now to 4K).
It works with the cheapest Mac mini, any monitor you have standing around and even via NDI.

Another duplicate post for which I again apologise - not sure what's gone on! Sorry!

You can't do all this in Resolve (or Baselight or Nucoda or Lustre or any other color-correction system). The advantage of keeping scopes outside of Resolve is that it's less load on the system, plus it gives you a lot more features and more flexibility on layout, plus it frees up the Resolve GUI and gives you more room to see the color controls, Lightbox, and Gallery. The disadvantage of external scopes is that it costs a bunch of money -- I'd guess we've put about $1400 into a Mac Mini, $250 in a wide display, and $1500 in a 4K UltraStudio to feed it -- but that's still a lot cheaper than what hardware 2K/4K scopes cost.

All excellent points... Personally I expect (in a professional context at least) the NLE to primarily manipulate digital media and output the results - via a suitable port - to dedicated purpose-made hardware for monitoring and evaluation. - The ability to emulate some of that hardware in the edit software will be useful (essential) to some, and an unwelcome/unnecessary overhead (bloat) to others.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want to see such things 'gone' from the software, some will need this sort of thing. It needs to be able to be switched off and the resources freed up... and the impression shouldn't be given or gained that they're the real deal. - The costs are just part of the the professional landscape and relatively modest TBH; though I appreciate, startling to many.

After all - You wouldn't want to go back to the days when a low band U-Matic setup cost you the price of a small flat!

I don't agree at all. It's all just a matter of decent implementation.
Do we really need 1 card to send data, 2nd card to get it and whole machine to process it?
Sounds so overdone these days and limited. Somehow I have doubt in it. Yes, it may use fair amount of GPU, but at the end it can't be crazy high usage for todays GPUs.
If it's a lot then recommend dedicated GPU (lower end should be enough?) which in case of Resolve is excluded from processing. Connect to dedicated monitor and done. Full flexibility and future proof (no hardware which gets quickly obsolete). If you building high-end machine and running out of slots then going "out of machine" could be a fallback solution.
Quickly analyse if things like NDI are good enough (if it doesn't introduce unacceptable errors) and use this as a way of passing signal outside your machine (no extra cost as about everyone already has gigabit/10gig network). OmniScope already does it, but Resolve is yet to touch NDI (I can see FCPX support was added through NDI 5 link). Somehow post is so short-sited and keeps using those 20 years old solutions.
Those arguments that cost is not high because 20 years ago it use to be 100x more are worthless something which I don't understand. Who cares how much things cost 20 years ago?

My 3D usage goes from about 10% to 15% when I turn the scopes on using an 8 GB 1070.

A small price, to my thinking.

I don't agree at all. It's all just a matter of decent implementation.
Sending clean feed from 1 machine to another using dedicated hardware etc. just to get scopes (maybe sending could be justified as signal may need go to monitor anyway)?
Sounds so overdone these days and limited.

In our (i.e. one of the longest-established video production companies in Scotland) case we absolutely need to monitor the output via a proper picture monitor running in the target resolution... because we need to make a cogent qualitative assessment. That's also the point in the chain we do the measurement at. - Personally, I'm not sure I'd run software based scopes (I don't really see the cost savings and would prefer a properly calibrated standalone unit); but if somebody else find that meet their needs (or indeed has a good reason to chose some other strategy) I've no criticism to level there.

This is a business-driven decision taken by properly trained, legitimately qualified, highly experienced broadcast professionals - necessary to reach the standards we are required to work to.

<snip...>Even with single GPU you could have scopes connected to a dedicated monitor as a 2nd GPU connection.

You can also eat ice-cream with a fork...

What we need to be monitoring is the final output... not a facsimile of the final intended for a computer monitor as, in essence, an extension of the U.I. With a caveat in acknowledging that some graphics cards can be set to drive a proper picture monitor properly - that generally means SDI monitoring.

As far as I'm concerned the 'monitor' outputs from a computer are only fit to display the UI. And the built-in scopes are just a 'close enough' rough guide. - It's better to have them than not, but they are of limited value. - And in general it's good practice to reduce or (where possible) eliminate every unnecessary load on the system running the edit program.

Somehow post is so short-sited and keeps using those 20 years old solutions.

Risible... Experientia docet! Which is why techniques and workflows evolve over time. Grandmother, eggs etc...

Those arguments that cost is not high because 20 years ago it use to be 100x more are worthless.

- Now you're being offensive; as well as creating a strawman argument.

Who cares how much things cost 20 years ago?

Anyone who had actually 'walked the walk' and understands the business models necessary to actually earn a living producing television programmes (or 'movies') - and the business itself.

It's about ROI. "Turtles all the way down" (for note) is a classic reference to infinite regress.

The example I gave actually reflects the situation as it was closer to 35 years ago... where equipment which by any recent standard (i.e. of the past 20 years or so at least) was very limited in both function and performance and extremely costly. That, along with the technical knowledge to operate it, acted as a serious and absolute barrier to entry in the production industry... Which meant that much talent was lost because it never had a chance to emerge.

It's a mixed-blessing that the technology which has emerged over the past 25 years has broken down those barriers.

On the one hand, those with a legitimate professional industry locus get to expand capabilities with a much-improved ROI and better/cheaper offer to the client base. On the other - there is nothing stopping people with just enough knowledge to be a danger to themselves and other people imagining they are 'experts' (the Dunning-Kruger effect) and - deliberately or unwittingly - misleading clients.

- In excess of 50% of the new business I see comes from clients who have 'lost out' by using (hiring) people like that... often resulting in five-figure financial losses and quite often six. - I know people whose entire business is based on sorting out the mess left behind by such dreamers.

What I actually wrote was 'you wouldn't want to go back to the days when a low band U-Matic setup cost you the price of a small flat!' - Whether you comprehend the need for proper monitoring or not is irrelevant... for those with the experience that do, the cost of compliance is much reduced in relative terms to what it was. - In fact the cost is (relatively speaking) trivial.

You're entirely welcome to run your own business (and operation) in your own way, and of course like everyone have to work within your financial limits... But there are legitimate reasons why those of us who have seen 'shiny new things' come in-and-out with the tide for decades tend to find it necessary to stick to proven, solid solutions; especially when what's at risk is the very thing that brings the money in.

I lived in London and worked there in small places and up to best VXF house there. Seen enough of this "established" approach with those expensive black hardware boxes. Some are great and work well, another half is pure waste of money. Broadcast and quality? Please don't make me laugh (maybe still in Scotland). Maybe 20 years ago, but not today. Today it's about pumping as much crap to the viewer as possible at lowest possible cost (even at BBC). Same goes to places- some small are great, some not at all. All big places operate now on same principle- 5% senior staff and 95% junior who have no real clue what they are doing. If I were a client I would go rather for smaller place (big enough to have all mandatory hardware though), but after some proper verification and some test deliveries. Fact that big places have "those expensive boxes" means not much for me as I've seen how and by whom they are used Big places also started saving everywhere possible, so those boxes are slowly disappearing as well.
London post world (which is by far biggest in Europe) is now very sad place. Technicolor and Deluxe bought most companies and now it's a corpo world with no innovation, spirit, etc. All run by rules from the top, which cares only about pleasing shareholders.

I said nothing about monitoring, but scopes.

Anyone who had actually 'walked the walk' and understands the business models necessary to actually earn a living producing television programmes (or 'movies') - and the business itself.

And you buy eg. Tektronix WMF expensive box only because in the past it use to cost even way more (so now it's cheap) instead of analysing current solutions and actual needs?
Well- as I said, seen this approach in many places in London. You know my opinion now.
I been working in post for 15 years, but don't care much how it used ot be in my early days. You take experience with you but rest (some sentiment, old approach ) is for me useless. I analyse every need based on current situation and solution and don't try hard to do it in old way only because I know it. It's hardly every best way, specially when now things move so quickly (sometimes still can be though).

You're entirely welcome to run your own business (and operation) in your own way, and of course like everyone have to work within your financial limits... But there are legitimate reasons why those of us who have seen 'shiny new things' come in-and-out with the tide for decades tend to find it necessary to stick to proven, solid solutions; especially when what's at risk is the very thing that brings the money in.

Maybe it works in Scotland, but try it in London or even in Poland. If you keep buying expensive hardware just to show off and because you're too scared to try other ways you won't last too long. Costs will eat you as no one is paying very good money for post services anymore (it's quite crap money tbh). If you are not efficient you will be gone (unless you have public money to waste).

- In excess of 50% of the new business I see comes from clients who have 'lost out' by using (hiring) people like that... often resulting in five-figure financial losses and quite often six. - I know people whose entire business is based on sorting out the mess left behind by such dreamers.

I know this very well, but this is more a problem with client who thinks he can be clever and save money.
At the end they do come back and those "cheap services" die. Been efficient which can translate to prices is 1 thing and been just cheap is very different.

And you buy eg. Tektronix WMF expensive box only because in the past it use to cost even way more (so now it's cheap) instead of analysing current solutions and actual needs?

I assume English is not your first language... and therefore excuse this bizarrely twisted interpretation of what I wrote. - Because otherwise this is just an intellectually-lazy snipe.

No, I'll pay the money for a unit that works to the required standard, is robust and dependable and likely to remain an asset for a great-many years. - That actually IS analysing current solutions and actual needs - as opposed to buying into 'the Emperor's new clothes' and settling for some half-baked nonsense that happens to be 'down with the kids'... If I thought the internal scopes, or monitoring off the graphics card was any damn good I would do that!

I been working in post for 15 years, but don't care much how it used ot be in my early days.

And I've been working in TV production for 42 years this June... Completed a four-year apprenticeship and a further two years obligatory training to gain 'Journeyman' status by which time I was required to reach at least the HND academic standard. - That in turn was just the start of the Academic journey... which eventually led me to spend twelve years as a college Lecturer - whilst simultaneously managing the video production business I first established in 1986.

I analyse every need based on current situation and solution and don't try hard to do it in old way only because I know it. It's hardly every best way, specially when now things move so quickly (sometimes still can be though).

Personally I draw on every moment of my 40-odd years of experience, and training. And you're quite deluded if you imagine for a second I (or any other credible seasoned professional) base any business decision on simple familiarity... It's about ROI and business risk... It has to be because my livliehood depends upon it.

Turning your notion back at you - I don't base my decisions on the notion that something is better just because it's newer - because it very-often isn't! And that's particularly so if the item in question is some style-over-substance posing piece; as a lot of the gear advocated by 'the disruptive' is!


Oddly enough, I agree with much of what you say about the structure of many organisations. i.e.

5% senior staff and 95% junior who have no real clue what they are doing. If I were a client I would go rater for smaller place (big enough to have all mandatory hardware though).

I said my business was one of the longest-established of its kind in Scotland. It's also one of the smallest - and quite deliberately so. We focus mainly on the 99.9%+ of UK businesses that are micro/SMEs. And no, I don't employ people (not even as contractors) who aren't properly qualified and/or don't know what they're doing.

I said nothing about monitoring, but scopes.

Please desist from this habit deflection and strawman argument you told me that the facts I had cited were worthless'... and indeed appear to take a similarly belligerent tack with Marc for some reason. That's a 'red rag'.

...In this instance I've simply pointed out where in the chain we believe it's appropriate to monitor (both picture and waveforms) the reasons why, and the background to that decision. And indeed why that strategy is adopted and sustained. ...You'll find that 'scopes' is simply a vernacular term for waveform monitoring, i.e a part of the overall monitoring and qualitative assessment process.

Seen enough of this "established" approach with those expensive black hardware boxes.

Have you really... oh well .

Whilst I would readily accept there is an awful lot of 'all the gear and no idea' out there, often driven by the 'rote management' disease that seems so common in corporate and public-service management. - I'm afraid it remains cold hard fact that a 'established' approach hold rather more water than some others...

I can think of many instances where trendy loft offices filled with laptop-huddling -hipsters commonly claim to be being 'disruptive' and 'innovative' by eschewing the 'established' approach. - In fact they're mostly hobbling-along with half-baked toys and they're the source of many people's problems!

One notable example I know of used to draw in the crowd with a 'free bar', cupcakes and the boast that one of their crew was a real-life failed Space Cadet (sort of). These days they're being all 'world class' and 'global'...

In truth the place is run by relatives of a known drugs wholesaler (that bankrolls the place) who had much of his wealth seized when he was caught out exploiting a vulnerable local artist. Seems this is another aspect of his money-laundering activities. - Very popular with 'local council' types in a place where it's often said the council Cleaners' used vacuum bags have a 'street value' because of all the Cocaine mixed in with the dust... Sleazy and disreputable as they come!

So, I'm afraid I too have 'seen enough'! - Of the evangelically 'non-established approach' which is most likely to indicate that (at best) it's one of those places where the 95% have no clue and the Senior Management are some combination of delusional, dodgy or even downright criminal!

I digress...

London post world (which is by far biggest in Europe) is now very sad place. Technicolor and Deluxe bought most companies and now it's a corpo world with no innovation, spirit, etc. All run by rules from the top, which cares only about pleasing shareholders.

On that I will wholeheartedly agree... I too spent much of my youth in London, in the early 80s, Training with a major broadcaster. I got myself back up to Scotland just as soon as I had saved up enough money to start out on my own. And the London I knew no longer exists; it priced itself out of the market and became nothing more than a 'slave galley'.

We stopped encouraging work that takes us down to London about 15-16 years ago; started surcharging heavily but were still cheaper than the London crowd. We couldn't shake them off - so I withdrew all service from the area ringed by the M25 about eight years ago.

It's no great loss. - The place as you suggest is soul-less.

But...scopes! Let's not wander too far off topic. As I say... choice of software based scopes aside (moot point) I see Marc's approach and rationale to be in keeping with reasonable practice. It's certainly unreasonable to dismiss it as rudely you did... and though I do hope you continue successfully in your post-production career and carry no ill-will; what you've said here will ensure our paths don't cross.

If you imagine standard practices are simply 'old' or 'stuck in the mud' - based on some sort of wistfulness for the past, done for their own sake... No. That's ridiculous - or if (as many young people do) you imagine that your seniors don't understand new technology - you're just kidding yourself on.

I think we're done here.

There is no problem with fact that you prefer established solutions and I experimental
My route took me from a compressionist to a system integrator who had to learn Python from scratch. Such a different world, but old experience/knowledge is still with me and very useful now and then. Now black boxes are even less appealing for me.

You're happy when software scope gets signal over SDI, but when you can feed same scopes with much better (32bit float untouched) signal directly from GPU you think (I assume) this is bad way. For me SDI is past (good, reliable link but bit limited today), for you (I assume) it creates fundaments of post. We have own worlds which likely can co-exist

Those arguments that cost is not high because 20 years ago it use to be 100x more are worthless.

- Now you're being offensive; as well as creating a strawman argument.

Edited, so it's not offensive (I hope).